Re: Converting README documentation to Markdown - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 08.04.24 21:29, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Over in [0] I asked whether it would be worthwhile converting all our README
> files to Markdown, and since it wasn't met with pitchforks I figured it would
> be an interesting excercise to see what it would take (my honest gut feeling
> was that it would be way too intrusive).  Markdown does brings a few key
> features however so IMHO it's worth attempting to see:
> 
> * New developers are very used to reading/writing it
> * Using a defined format ensures some level of consistency
> * Many users and contributors new*as well as*  old like reading documentation
>    nicely formatted in a browser
> * The documentation now prints really well
> * pandoc et.al can be used to render nice looking PDF's
> * All the same benefits as discussed in [0]
> 
> The plan was to follow Grubers original motivation for Markdown closely:
> 
>     "The idea is that a Markdown-formatted document should be publishable
>     as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with
>     tags or formatting instructions."
> 
> This translates to making the least amount of changes to achieve a) retained
> plain text readability at todays level, b) proper Markdown rendering, not
> looking like text files in a HTML window, and c) absolutly no reflows and
> minimal impact on git blame.

I started looking through this and immediately found a bunch of tiny 
problems.  (This is probably in part because the READMEs under 
src/backend/access/ are some of the more complicated ones, but then they 
are also the ones that might benefit most from better rendering.)

One general problem is that original Markdown and GitHub-flavored 
Markdown (GFM) are incompatible in some interesting aspects.  For 
example, the line

     A split initially marks the left page with the F_FOLLOW_RIGHT flag.

is rendered by GFM as you'd expect.  But original Markdown converts it to

     A split initially marks the left page with the F<em>FOLLOW</em>RIGHT
     flag.

This kind of problem is pervasive, as you'd expect.

Another incompatibility is that GFM accepts "1)" as a list marker (which 
appears to be used often in the READMEs), but original Markdown does 
not.  This then also affects surrounding formatting.

Also, the READMEs often do not indent lists in a non-ambiguous way.  For 
example, if you look into src/backend/optimizer/README, section "Join 
Tree Construction", there are two list items, but it's not immediately 
clear which paragraphs belong to the list and which ones follow the 
list.  This also interacts with the previous point.  The resulting 
formatting in GFM is quite misleading.

src/port/README.md is a similar case.

There are also various places where whitespace is used for ad-hoc 
formatting.  Consider for example in src/backend/access/gin/README

   the "category" of the null entry.  These are the possible categories:

     1 = ordinary null key value extracted from an indexable item
     2 = placeholder for zero-key indexable item
     3 = placeholder for null indexable item

   Placeholder null entries are inserted into the index because otherwise

But this does not preserve the list-like formatting, it just flows it 
together.

There is a similar case with the authors list at the end of 
src/backend/access/gist/README.md.

src/test/README.md wasn't touched by your patch, but it also needs 
adjustments for list formatting.


In summary, I think before we could accept this, we'd need to go through 
this with a fine-toothed comb line by line and page by page to make sure 
the formatting is still sound.  And we'd need to figure out which 
Markdown flavor to target.